A “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A tomorrow?

posted at 11:36 am on August 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

One day after having the best sales day in its history, Chick-fil-A will have to prepare itself for a counter-protest to yesterday’s “appreciation day” by those outraged over threats made by mayors and city council members in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York (Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not join his colleagues in the other cities). Supporters of same-sex marriage will stage “kiss-ins” at Chick-fil-A locations tomorrow, if a Facebook-organized protest succeeds:

Yesterday’s banner turnout at Chick-fil-A restaurants for free speech rights — with thousands of people nationwide and hundreds in the Bay State’s two locations lining up to buy chicken sandwiches — has turned up the heat on gay rights activists who hope to draw similar crowds for tomorrow’s kiss-in protest at the suddenly controversial fast-food chain.

“We planned an action a few years ago and we only expected 50 people but 500 showed. We’re crossing our fingers for that kind of support again,” said Ian Struthers of grassroots group Join the Impact Massachusetts, who plans to pucker up tomorrow at the Burlington Mall Chick-fil-A for national Same-Sex Kiss Day.

Gay rights advocates are using Facebook to organize the kiss-in in protest of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage and the millions of dollars they say the company has donated to anti-gay groups.

The Bay State group plans to hand out fake coupons to customers for a “free side of bigotry” during the Friday night protest.

Well, good luck with that — and I’m not being entirely flippant, either. This protest has been rumored since at least last week, before supporters loosely organized the “appreciation day” yesterday, but seem to be having difficulty coordinating it. Even if it does get off the ground tomorrow, it’s very unlikely to approach the level of support shown by fans of Chick-fil-A and/or free speech and free exercise of religious expression yesterday. A weak showing tomorrow would be worse than skipping the protest entirely, as we saw with the failed Occupy movements, whose spring offensive never materialized after being mostly ignored after the first couple of weeks of protesting last fall.

However, there is nothing wrong with protesting over Chick-fil-A’s political connections or ownership’s political views, as long as protestors obey the law in doing so. That is a perfectly acceptable free-speech, free-market approach to disagreement within commerce. I’d rather see kiss-ins than lawsuits, for instance, and certainly more than seeing politicians extort businessmen to support their political agendas, as is exactly what Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel attempted to do in Boston and Chicago, respectively. Protests that don’t block customers from accessing the business or act violently are a good release valve for a free society. Pro-life activists have picketed abortion mills for decades — and often had to fight courts for that same right. LGBT activists have just as much right to protest Chick-fil-A.

Huckabee said he sees nothing wrong with “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick Fil A,” although he is skeptical of the strategy.

“Probably I won’t be there for that,” Huckabee said. “But so what? That’s America. As long as they’re orderly, as long as they don’t disrupt the flow of customers and traffic — if they believe that will help their cause, to put people of the same sex kissing each other in a public place in front of families, if they believe that will encourage people to be more sympathetic, then, you know, more power to them.

“In America, I believe people have a right to do things that I might not agree with,” he continued. “What I don’t want to do is shut down the voices of Christians because they don’t like those voices.”

In America, we used to take that for granted. Unfortunately, the cities of Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco elected politicians who forgot that America doesn’t require an oath to support The Party as a condition of engaging in commerce. In my new column for The Fiscal Times, I point out that this is an essential ingredient in America’s success from the start by guaranteeing equal treatment and regulation regardless of religious belief or political temperament, and that we risk a lot more than a missed chicken filet sandwich if we forget that:

Until now, we have welcomed people of all faiths and creeds into the marketplace as long as they observed rational and reasonable regulation intended to prevent fraud, theft, and abuse, but without trampling on their ability to abide by their beliefs. In return, a large number of people bring their capital and talent to our markets and generate wealth, jobs, stability, infrastructure, and an increased tax base to our communities. If we force these people to take their capital and exit these markets, it will result in seriously degraded economies, restriction on choice, fewer jobs, less demand, and a lower standard of living – not to mention keep some of the most talented people from addressing the difficult issues that we face.

Our founders understood that explicitly. They saw the disruptions and damage done by religious tests not just for office but also for commerce, and acted to ensure that our governments would not impose such systems on Americans. For more than two hundred years, that freedom transformed us into the most powerful nation in the world, economically, militarily, and politically. Imposing a test for political correctness that excludes tens of millions of faithful Americans cannot help but undermine all that progress as well as our natural rights as citizens.

If government has grown so powerful as to be able to impose and prosecute such tests, then that may be the clearest indication yet that government has grown too large and intrusive to the detriment of all.

Instapundit wrote today that he’s less worried about the impact on our economic health than on the First Amendment — and I agree. But it’s worth considering the kind of damage that the demand for political and religious orthodoxy as a condition of doing business will have on us in the long run.

Meanwhile, at Patheos, Fr. Dwight Longenecker marvels at the success of yesterday’s protest — and then decides it wasn’t really a protest as much as a rally as an expression of “ordinary” Americanism:

The Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day yesterday was historic. It was historic because it marks a new method of mass protest. I even hesitate to use the word ‘protest’ because it wasn’t a protest. There wasn’t any anger. There wasn’t any hate. There wasn’t any bullying. There were no unwashed crowds of unhappy people holding a sit in and causing other people stress, inconvenience and expense. There were no protest signs, no marches, no noise makers and attention grabbers. There were no revolutionary slogans, no clenched fists, no class warfare, no sullen adolescents in a stroppy mood.

The classic signs of a protest movement were absent. If they were not actually violent revolutions, the great protest movements in history have often had violent undertones. Subtle threats were made. Bullying tactics, financial and political pressure was exerted. Guns were wielded. Behind the scenes in smoke filled rooms men did deals and crossed swords to determine the future of millions. In the great revolutions hoards of unhappy people filled the streets, rioting and on the rampage they took what they wanted, killed who they wanted and in misplaced zeal for justice overturned an established order. …

Yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was the sort of ‘revolt’ this country needs, but it was even better than the non violent revolutions and peaceful protests which have changed the world because it was so ordinary. It was just plain, ordinary Americans getting in their cars and doing a plain, ordinary American thing: going out for lunch to a fast food joint. It was just plain, ordinary Americans doing something plain and ordinary, but positive and joyful and good. In buying an ordinary tasty chicken sandwich at their corner fast food emporium ordinary Americans were expressing the wish to be left alone to be ordinary Americans.

After two weeks of highly anti-American behavior by elected officials who should know better, it’s good to see Americans acting like Americans — especially in large numbers. That’s true even of the kiss-in, to whatever extent it succeeds. Let’s debate politics and religious values, while allowing everyone to come to market and make their own choices about who and what to engage there. That is what liberty is all about.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I haven’t researched the history of marriage in this country, but I do know that in medieval England and Europe, marriage was a private contract, between a man and a woman (and sometimes their families, if we’re talking nobility or royalty), which was then solemnized by the Church. Contracts could be drawn up years in advance of the solemnization of the marriage.
[/sidebar]

Thanks for your patience! I just cut out a bunch of my post so your and other folks’ eyes wouldn’t glaze over. :-)

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I’m back and kinda zipping thru here…I know the feeling of having so much you want to say and trying to keep it edited :/ Give us a bar and a few beers and we could debate this til the cows come home :)

I wanted to point that statement out tho…about the origins marriage. True, in the early days of marriage, there were those to whom marriage was a private contract. And royalty of the time were considered to be God’s representative and to rule with divine authority. Church and state, although in differing ways, weren’t exclusive of each other.

My point tho is that I have a “facepalm” moment when people trot out their religious views to deny marriage to gays…when the whole argument has nothing to do with any religion…it’s a state matter. Like myself, there are many Christian gays out there…we’re not all atheist bent on the destruction of Christianity so we can have Folsom St. fairs at St. Patrick’s cathedral.

Again, the topic of gay marriage has nothing to do with anyone’s faith. If gays marry, and are recognized by the state, your person faith isn’t affected one bit. Nothing is taken from you..and anyone who feels their own marriage “wouldn’t be the same” and “It changes the definition of marriage” probably shouldn’t be married in the first place, or have the wrong idea of what marriage is all about…love, dedication, stability, family–biological or adopted kids or no kids at all. It’s not just some scheme to attack Christians.

Take an XXY person (Klinefelter’s), for example, who has both male and female parts. Or a genetically male XY person, who has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and thus looks physically female.

Neither of these people are male OR female. So, exactly who can an XXY person marry? Do we flip a coin: heads makes marrying ‘males’ and sin, tails makes marry ‘females’ a sin?

Or, I guess we could cover our eyes and start screaming ‘one man, one woman’ over and over until any conflicting evidence in the natural world magically vanishes.

But really. I’d like to know where you categorize inter-sex people in that ‘one male, one female’ world view of yours.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You will make a fine liberal when you grow up! You have mastered the art of expecting to change the lives of 300+ million people to solve the problem of, how many? How about the guy I saw on TLC who had no body at all below the waist? What about him? What is he supposed to do?/

Just so I’m clear, what benefits are we talking about here? Is this hospital visitation issues or tax deductions?

Regardless, these days, I want as little government as possible, especially with all this Chick-Fil-A stuff, so I’m in the mindset right now where I’d argue for getting rid of all but the demonstrably necessary benefits anyway.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I’m with you on all counts…and yes, it’s about hospital visitation and tax deductions the thousand of other befefits afforded to legal married couples.

But most of all, above all else, it’s about love and commitment and being treated, by law, as any other “traditional” marriage is. Not special treatment…equal treatment, as our contitution guarantees all Americans.

We give more benefits and rights to convicted felons than we do for gay couples.

Take an XXY person (Klinefelter’s), for example, who has both male and female parts. Or a genetically male XY person, who has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and thus looks physically female.

Neither of these people are male OR female. So, exactly who can an XXY person marry? Do we flip a coin: heads makes marrying ‘males’ and sin, tails makes marry ‘females’ a sin?

Or, I guess we could cover our eyes and start screaming ‘one man, one woman’ over and over until any conflicting evidence in the natural world magically vanishes.

But really. I’d like to know where you categorize inter-sex people in that ‘one male, one female’ world view of yours.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You will make a fine liberal when you grow up! You have mastered the art of expecting to change the lives of 300+ million people to solve the problem of, how many? How about the guy I saw on TLC who had no body at all below the waist? What about him? What is he supposed to do?/

Night Owl on August 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Or I forgot about dumping them into the ‘misfits’ category and denying them companionship and partnership, the joys of raising children and all the fun stuff that would make them feel like decent, normal human beings.

‘Cause that’s exactly what Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 said. Love the Lord with all your mind, hear and soul; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ except if they are gay, or are neither male nor female. Then it’s okay to marginalize, dehumanize and ban them from civil marriage because that’s LOVE.

But most of all, above all else, it’s about love and commitment and being treated, by law, as any other “traditional” marriage is. Not special treatment…equal treatment, as our contitution guarantees all Americans.

We give more benefits and rights to convicted felons than we do for gay couples.

Umm, I think that the intent is to destroy the First Amendment. Once they’ve done that, they can pick off any religion they choose.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I will agree that the left wants to selectively use the First Amendment. Much like their definition of “tolerance” and “hate”. To the left, tolerance means everyone must agree with them, and hate means that you disagree with them. He who controls the language, controls the debate.

I still maintain that the real enemy of the left is Christianity. I think there is a greater battle going on here than homosexuality, an eternal struggle that dates back to the beginning of time.

Umm, I think that the intent is to destroy the First Amendment. Once they’ve done that, they can pick off any religion they choose.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I will agree that the left wants to selectively use the First Amendment. Much like their definition of “tolerance” and “hate”. To the left, tolerance means everyone must agree with them, and hate means that you disagree with them. He who controls the language, controls the debate.

I still maintain that the real enemy of the left is Christianity. I think there is a greater battle going on here than homosexuality, an eternal struggle that dates back to the beginning of time.

TitularHead on August 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM

But how to explain the left’s alliance with radical islam? That makes no sense to me at all.

It should be categorized as mental illness or delusion.
It can be accepted by an individual or society, but should not be enabled or encouraged as “normal”. Its not imo.
It doesn’t matter if the people afflicted as “nice” or not…the guy who thinks he’s Abe Lincoln or the woman who claims to be Cleopatra, or the people who claim to be psychic can be very nice people and responsible citizens, but those delusions should not be encouraged. It just leads to greater and grander delusions.

Then it’s okay to marginalize, dehumanize and ban them from civil marriage because that’s LOVE.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 7:32 PM

How old are you, 20? Do you really think that anyone who disagrees with you is a H8R? Do you scream “H8R!” if you don’t get your way right now? [eyeroll] Total lack of maturity, dude.

Now read carefully:

It is never okay to marginalize your neighbor.
It is never okay to dehumanize your neighbor.
Civilized adults can disagree on the purpose, function, and meaning of marriage and still remain civil, something you seem to be having a hard time doing.
(And don’t give me any crap about “Well, you guys do it, too!” That didn’t work on your mother, and it won’t work on me.)

The Australian blogger Zoe Brain started life as a boy, got married, had a kid, and then suddenly “he” started turning into a “she.” (I used to read Zoe’s blog regularly, but it fell off my radar in the run-up to the 2008 elections. I should stop in there sometime. Zoe is a very fine writer on a wide variety of topics.)

Over fifty different hormones have been discovered in the human body. There’s a hormone or hormones to govern every physiological process we have. A “hormone storm”, if not treated in time, can set off a metabolic cascade that can kill a person.

Zoe, and others, have reported experiencing the biological crisis of a body whose hormones suddenly didn’t match its physiology. I can see that that might drive a person temporarily or permanently insane, but if so, the mental illness didn’t cause the gender confusion — it was a result.

Well, actually you’re both right. Islam has the most schizophrenic response to homosexuality on the face of the planet.

On the one hand, you have people being stoned to death for being gay, or even accused of being gay.

On the other hand, soldiers in Afghanistan learned this joke and many variants) from the locals:
Q. “Why do birds fly over Kabul using only one wing?”
A. “Because they have to cover their behinds with the other!”

Well, actually you’re both right. Islam has the most schizophrenic response to homosexuality on the face of the planet.

On the one hand, you have people being stoned to death for being gay, or even accused of being gay.

On the other hand, soldiers in Afghanistan learned this joke and many variants) from the locals:
Q. “Why do birds fly over Kabul using only one wing?”
A. “Because they have to cover their behinds with the other!”

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 8:06 PM

.
.
So does this mean that Mayor’s will have the power to not allow any businesses owned my Muslims?? Especially since their belief is that gays should be stoned to death????
.
.

The Australian blogger Zoe Brain started life as a boy, got married, had a kid, and then suddenly “he” started turning into a “she.”

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Whatever the various mechanisms may be, as you point out, it’s a medical condition in much the same way the various mental illnesses and delusions can based in chemical imbalances.
That being said, I still think that the stance of “letting it run..its none of your business” going unchallenged is a mistake.

“Probably I won’t be there for that,” Huckabee said. “But so what? That’s America. As long as they’re orderly, as long as they don’t disrupt the flow of customers and traffic — if they believe that will help their cause, to put people of the same sex kissing each other in a public place in front of families, if they believe that will encourage people to be more sympathetic, then, you know, more power to them.

“In America, I believe people have a right to do things that I might not agree with,” he continued. “What I don’t want to do is shut down the voices of Christians because they don’t like those voices.”

Huckabee is being a sly dog. He knows perfectly well that “kiss-ins” will have the opposite effect of encouraging people to be more sympathetic.

Besides, all it takes to turn this protest on its head — assuming it even gathers enough steam to be noticeable — is another Chick-Fil-A appreciation day when hordes of people add to Chick-Fil-A’s bottom line.

This is a losing proposition for the homo-advocates, and I think they know it.

As a blk/whte conservative woman, i really don’t care what people do in there homes as long as no one is getting hurt. How AMERICANS live their lives is NONE of my business!!
Having said that… Please Please LGBT just step back and ask yourself “is this the best way to move our agenda”? As someone who loves you, I really don’t think so.

‘Cause that’s exactly what Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 said. Love the Lord with all your mind, hear and soul; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ except if they are gay, or are neither male nor female. Then it’s okay to marginalize, dehumanize and ban them from civil marriage because that’s LOVE.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 7:32 PM

That gambit only works if you feel that way and you don’t. You want to use it against me to make me feel guilty for making light of your odd example, but you didn’t answer my question. The whole country has to change what they believe to suit you? That’s very childish.

‘Cause that’s exactly what Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 said. Love the Lord with all your mind, hear and soul; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ except if they are gay, or are neither male nor female. Then it’s okay to marginalize, dehumanize and ban them from civil marriage because that’s LOVE.

Problem is, gay marriage is just a beginning, not an end, for the progressive homosexual agenda.

Rebar on August 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Hey, what two people do with their own lives–plus the person levied by the state, dragged there to take pictures–is just the business of the two consenting adults… and then there is that levied government slave–who really has no right to be such a bigot!

Went to my local chick-fil-a today, pretty much a normal and busy lunch rush with people thanking the employees for not caving to the pc thought police and sticking to their principles. the ‘kiss-in’ protest is pretty much dead on arrival. lulzzz.

I am the conservative here
No you are wrong, I am the conservative
No no I am the most conservative
No no no you are wrong, I am the most conservative
Uh uh, its me me me the mostest conservative
You are full of it, I am the very mostest conservative here
You are a rino, you are not conservative
I am not a rino, I have been conservative for twenty years
Well, I have been conservative for thirty years so there
Psssfft! I have been conservative all my life
Heck, I was conservative in my first life
And I will be conservative when I am dead
Can’t top that, you win. You are the most conservative here
And on and on ad infinitum sufferings and tribulations
One thing for sure, you both are the biggest bores.